Re: recover broken partition on external HDD

Marijn Stollenga posted on Sat, 04 Aug 2018 12:14:44 +0200 as excerpted: > Hello btrfs experts, I need your help trying to recover an external HDD. > I accidentally created a zfs partition on my external HD, which of > course screw up the whole partition. I quickly unplugged it and it being > a

[PATCH 2/2] Install btrfs-ioctl.3 man page

--- Documentation/Makefile.in | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) diff --git a/Documentation/Makefile.in b/Documentation/Makefile.in index c4c843cb..5bc0d80d 100644 --- a/Documentation/Makefile.in +++ b/Documentation/Makefile.in @@ -94,8 +94,10 @@ html: $(MAN_HTML) install: install-man

[PATCH 1/2] Install uncompressed man pages

Build systems do not typically compress man pages when installing them. This is generally left to distro packaging mechanisms, which may end up recompressing them using a different compressor. --- Documentation/Makefile.in | 22 +++--- 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 11

Hello,Your Response Is Needed Urgently

-- Hello I am Craig Donaldson, the personal account office to our late customer with our Bank Name Withheld for security reasons, a national of your country, who used to work with Shell Oil - development company in here in UK as a contractor. On the 21st of April 2016, my client, his wife and

Btrfs progs release 4.17.1

Hi, btrfs-progs version 4.17.1 have been released. This is a bugfix release, consisting of most of current devel branch. The kernel release of 4.18 is going to be delayed one more week so this would delay the fixes too. The plan for 4.18 still is to merge the ioctl support for subvolume listing.

[PATCH v2] btrfs: btrfs_shrink_device should call commit transaction

test case btrfs/164 reported UAF.. [ 6712.084324] general protection fault: [#1] PREEMPT SMP :: [ 6712.195423] btrfs_update_commit_device_size+0x75/0xf0 [btrfs] [ 6712.201424] btrfs_commit_transaction+0x57d/0xa90 [btrfs] [ 6712.206999] btrfs_rm_device+0x627/0x850 [btrfs] [ 6712.211800]

Re: [PATCH] btrfs: handle the BUG_ON in btrfs_num_devices()

On 08/03/2018 09:33 PM, Nikolay Borisov wrote: On 3.08.2018 15:45, Anand Jain wrote: Its a logical bug if we hit fs_devices::num_devices == 1 and if the replace is running because, as fs_devices::num_devices counts the in memory devices, so it should include the replace target which is

[PATCH] btrfs: test writing into unwritten extent right before snapshotting

From: Filipe Manana Test that if we write into an unwritten extent of a file when there is no more space left to allocate in the filesystem and then snapshot the file's subvolume, after a clean shutdown the data was not lost. This test is motivated by a bug found by Robbie Ko for which there is

Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: optimization to avoid ENOSPC for nocow writes after snapshot when low on data space

On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 3:33 AM, robbieko wrote: > Filipe Manana 於 2018-08-03 18:22 寫到: > >> On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 10:13 AM, robbieko wrote: >>> >>> From: Robbie Ko >>> >>> Commit e9894fd3e3b3 ("Btrfs: fix snapshot vs nocow writting") >>> forced writeback fallback to COW when subvolume is

Re: [RFC PATCH] btrfs: Remove 'objectid' member from struct btrfs_root

On 2018/08/06 15:17, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > On 2018年08月06日 13:25, Misono Tomohiro wrote: >> There are two members in struct btrfs_root which indicate root's >> objectid: ->objectid and ->root_key.objectid. >> >> They are both set to the same value in __setup_root(): >> static void

Re: [RFC PATCH] btrfs: Remove 'objectid' member from struct btrfs_root

On 08/06/2018 02:17 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote: On 2018年08月06日 13:25, Misono Tomohiro wrote: There are two members in struct btrfs_root which indicate root's objectid: ->objectid and ->root_key.objectid. They are both set to the same value in __setup_root(): static void __setup_root(struct

Re: BUG: scheduling while atomic

On 2018年08月06日 14:07, James Courtier-Dutton wrote: > > > On Mon, 6 Aug 2018, 01:48 Qu Wenruo, > wrote: > > > > On 2018年08月05日 22:09, James Courtier-Dutton wrote: > > I am seeing a server halt and require a manual restart that I think > > might be

Re: [RFC PATCH] btrfs: Remove 'objectid' member from struct btrfs_root

On 2018年08月06日 13:25, Misono Tomohiro wrote: > There are two members in struct btrfs_root which indicate root's > objectid: ->objectid and ->root_key.objectid. > > They are both set to the same value in __setup_root(): > static void __setup_root(struct btrfs_root *root, >

[PATCH 0/3] btrfs-progs: Minor qgroup subcommand usage update

It turns out even commit e5a6610c943b ("btrfs-progs: qgroup assign: add option to schedule rescan") introduced the ability to auto rescan, it's less known option and even some developer find it hard to understand. (Well, the whole quota thing is already a little hard to understand) Thus it makes

[PATCH 2/3] btrfs-progs: qgroup: make --rescan as the default behavior for assign

Even though we have --rescan option, it still needs user to manually specify it. However even some developer is not aware of the option, it makes even less sense for end-user. So make it the default behavior. Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo --- Documentation/btrfs-qgroup.asciidoc | 4 ++--

[PATCH 3/3] btrfs-progs: Doc: Update btrfs-qgroup for the rescan condition

Add a new section, RESCAN CONDITION, to explain why and when we need a full quota rescan when assigning/removing qgroup relationship. Also, since 'remove' shares the same options of 'assign', add reference to 'assign' options for 'remove' subcommand. Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo ---

[PATCH 1/3] btrfs-progs: cmds-qgroup: Use bool to replace int for @rescan

Just a cleanup to avoid abuse of int. Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo --- cmds-qgroup.c | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/cmds-qgroup.c b/cmds-qgroup.c index 93206900693d..7a505443d271 100644 --- a/cmds-qgroup.c +++ b/cmds-qgroup.c @@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ static int